AY

Today Iran is doing the most damage againstt Israel. But the past must not be rewritten. Some of the heaviest losses Israeli soldiers ever suffered came at the hands of Sunni majority states fighting In 1973 Egypt shattered the myth of Israeli invincibility. Its forces crossed the Suez and forced Israel into one of the bloodiest wars in its history. And King Faisal رحمه الله proved that power is not only military. By turning the oil weapon on the powers backing Israel he showed that Muslim resources could move the world the moment the will was there.

🇲🇦🎥| Touché par la culture marocaine, le célèbre acteur Giancarlo Esposito explique comment le Maroc 🇲🇦 a encouragé sa conversion à l’Islam et appelle les Américains 🇺🇸 à visiter le Royaume.

The Netherlands hides massive trash containers underground so their streets stay spotless

ADMISSIONS NOW OPEN مَنْ يُرِدِ اللَّهُ بِهِ خَيْرًا يُفَقِّهْهُ فِي الدِّين Al-Nabī ﷺ said: Whosoever Allāh intends goodness for, He grants him understanding of the religion. (Al-Bukhārī)

This is THE LAST reply I send to you, you are not responding to anything you are welcome to join my panel. Mr. “Physical separability is a biological defense to a metaphysical problem, and this isn’t AI but rather my sophisticated rhetoric”, has (kinda?) responded. First off, I DO NOT HOLD to God being a 3D object, however, I do believe that it’s metaphysically coherent to commit to that yet simultaneously attribute it with aseity. Your argument in (1) hasn’t provided a defeater, why? Because as you said here; “This already is a problem because a 3D deity is arbitrarily limited in having 3 dimensions as to any other number. Therefore, your deity is modally contingent in His dimensionality. Furthermore, there must be an external cause or specifier that makes your deity 3 dimension as opposed to another number.”, you made two assumptions, and for the third time, PLEASE justify them! Why is it metaphysically incoherent for that “arbitrary limit” to be brute? How does that entail being “modally contingent”? It’s metaphysically coherent to assume that there exists x such that x is 3D, exists without a cause, and it’s a brute necessity, that “why” it’s the case is therefore brute. What’s the METAPHYSICAL problem here? Those aren’t even related. Also, another point, why “must there be an external specifier”? Why? What motivates that? Why can’t I say that for every object x, if x is simple, x needs an external simplifier? Are you arguing for epistemic inconsistency or metaphysical incoherency? Do you even know the difference, or did “biological defense” reading not suffice? If it’s epistemic inconsistency, then ontological dependency nor modal contingency are logically entailed. Do better. What’s funnier is that in (2), you basically make the same argument in a different way; “it is logically possible for that number to be different - thereby making His extent and boundaries an arbitrarily limit and rendering your God modally contingent. Again, there must be an external specifier for your God's finite spatial extent on the up-down axis.” First, logical possibility doesn’t entail metaphysical possibility. This is basic stuff dude. It’s demonstrably formally consistent that your “exists and not exists” outdated conception of God to not exist. Is that a serious defeater? No. Metaphysical possibility is motivated by commitments far beyond just mere formal consistency. Also again, “external specifier” and “arbitrary limits” are non-sequiturs as you haven’t demonstrated that they logically entail that, when I told you that such “issues” can be resolved by simply saying that such object is a brute necessity, and brute necessity isn’t ad-hoc because that’s what aseity is. Read up man. Third, speaking of aseity, you don’t even know what it means, it’s actually you who’s as clueless as a social Trinitarian. Aseity means there is x such that x obtains in all metaphysically possible worlds AND x lacks any external metaphysical explanation. In your ancient wizard of oz theology terms, aseity means something exists without a cause and always exists. That’s the mainstream definition within contemporary philosophy of religion. I told you, on the issue of composition, you low-tier, within my last tweet, which I told to not run away from and you did exactly that, to do three things, in order for the argument to follow; 1. Flesh out what ontic-priority is, 2. demonstrate why we ought to commit to that hermeneutic, and 3. prove how an object bearing properties necessarily entails ontological priority relations. Don’t run again and again from this. How is causal dependency even entailed? Is God under your view thereby causally dependent because of necessitarianism, really? Do you see how pathetic and self-defeating your argument is? I will reply to (4) of your tweet later under this post.

Like this if you have or will read Ihya Ulum al-Din by Hujjat al-Islam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali

John Wycliffe is one of my heroes. His passion, conviction, and desire to get the Word of God into the hands of the people. This week I was able to look at our earliest surviving copy of Wycliffe’s English Bible. The Wycliffe Bible was produced in the late 1300s, roughly 1382–1395, making it the first complete English rendering of the Bible, over 200 years before the King James Version of 1611. If you look closely you’ll notice it’s handwritten, not printed. Every copy had to be produced by scribes. This was before printing arrived in England, so owning a Wycliffe Bible meant owning a massive, labor-intensive manuscript. It became a medieval bestseller. More than 250 Wycliffite Bible manuscripts survive, which is extraordinary for a banned or controversial medieval English text. Only about 20 of those are complete Bibles.The copy you see me looking at in this picture — one of two I was able to take a look at — includes Genesis to Isaiah. The other one was a Wycliffe New Testament from 1390. It was risky after 1408–1409 to produce and own one of these. The Archbishop of Canterbury at the time, Thomas Arundel, restricted unauthorized new Scripture translations and public reading of Wycliffe-associated texts. So later possession or use of these copies could become religiously dangerous, especially if linked with the Wycliffe followers, known as Lollards. Also, take a look at the last image, a calendar at the front of the second smaller Wycliffe Bible we looked at, from 1390. At the bottoms of the page the scribe has written: “Anno Domini 1348, in festo Sancti Michaelis Magni, evenit prima pestilentia Londoni” — “In the year of our Lord 1348, on the feast of St. Michael the Great, the first plague occurred in London.”

Dr. Khalil, how do you have a PHD yet you still argue composition like a 2020 discordian phil bro? You haven’t justified your conclusions, you said all that is made of inseparable parts depends on its parts to exist, that’s just another way of saying Allah is self-dependant because he depends on nothing external to himself! Thanks for refuting yourself. You didn’t give an argument, you didn’t show an inference rule, you just asserted a conclusion. You said that my God must be 3D, without giving the argument! You just asserted it again! lol. Let’s grant for argument sake that God is 3D, a giant body above heavens (for arguments sake so don’t twist my words) you STILL wouldn’t be able to show a metaphysical problem with that other than than crying “TAJSIM” you and your classical theistic buddies. Now regarding the “Hadd”, you posited that there must be a Mukhasis 😭😭 this does not follow! The Hadd is a relation that arises in respect to God creating! That is that God is completely distinguished from creates and not infinitely extending like you believe. We also allow for brute facts, no issue there. It’s funny how you say our position undermines Asiety when you believe God’s Asiety is dependant upon creation. Answer this question directly, Can God Exist As Self Sufficient Without Creation ? Watch how you blunder